derry

Thanks Wade, of course actions speak louder than words, with me what you see is what you get. Unless of course I'm setting something up, then you won't hear or see anything until the result reveals itself.

I think a relaunched trust mk2 as a fans focal point is the way to go, combining all requirements and putting a strong legal entity in place, rather than an association.

I'm not part of the trust and we only have an agreement with them to facilitate a rescue if it becomes necessary. As each day goes by, that is more unlikely. It is purely a legal mechanism to protect the assets of any trust. The law and trust deed dictates what they do, I understand you are bitterly opposed to the trust however I would be a fool to ignore the ability of a readymade legal trust to accelerate a rescue if it became necessary. Whatever the owners, this trust should be revamped, beefed up and made attractive to join so that if this ever occurred again, the trust could be a powerful force representing a majority of the supporters and actually make a difference. It would be wrong to let it stagnate, the sensible supporter should join it and help it to be what the fans actually need, a powerful and credible voice. It won't be me as as soon as this crisis is over I'm out of it and back to playing golf and watching football and coming on here now and again.

I'll try not to wake you up. Thanks for that. I see no evidence of your concerns, that's not to say there aren't any. I would say that over five hours of chats over four days nick came over as energetic, interesting, loves the saints, and wants the best for the club and the trust. We had no problem concluding an arrangement. I personally would support what I've seen and respected people on here have confirmed that support. I look forward to seeing a revamping/relaunch of the trust and then use it as a focal point for all fans. Then the members can have whoever they want as the officers.

I think that if say both want to bid, they negotiate with the administrators who then designate a preferred bidder and then they move towards exchanging contracts and paying over the money.

I don't know and honestly I don't care.

For goodness sake Stanley it's to comply with trust law. I doubt they have recruited many new members and would suffer natural wastage. But the law requires anybody who was ever a member to always be counted.

I was told 4 but I personally haven't a clue.

It was explained in a copy of their rules published on here yesterday. Nick explained the current situation to me. The membership by law is everyone who has been a member to protect trust assets and to stop a trust letting the membership drop to zero and the committee walking off with the assets. This way all the members share the assets. the trust now have a data base which contains 400 approx current members. They are not claiming 1000 members. As for SISA they have no trust status therefore it is irrelevant what they do or don't do. My understanding is they have very few members.

If anyone's interested in fact and nobody seems to be. I wouldn't want to get in the way of conjecture. 2 bidders have proved funds and are into the due diligence stage. 1 further serious bidder has still to prove funds. That's it.

You really are a tiresome prat. It's the last thing on his mind. If you want to snipe have a go at me.

From where I stand it looks like the bids are for the whole package. I was quoted that £15m will more than cover it.

The BBC have had to shelve plans to film their new series 'CSI Portsmouth' They couldn't find any dental records and everyone had the same DNA.

The trust does not need to be as it is perceived. A powerful influx of new blood, expertise, and every contributor would be a member, literally thousands of contributors having a vote. Now tell me that wouldn't change it. There were only effectively three groups, once the trust and saintsweb/saveoursaints decided to get together supporting a rescue only, the fans bid was irrelevant and could not succeed. The SISA group have form, it was described to me in graphic detail by a number of people. Our group would not in any circumstances countenance that behaviour. The meeting just confirmed that they were incapable of a normal working relationship and confirmed their irrelevance to the two groups. I wouldn't work with them under any circumstances and to be fair them with me.

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I can more than look after myself and if you knew my background and reputation it's not me you would be fearing for. The fan ownership sceme was killed off yesterday afternoon in my lounge. not at the meeting 4 hours later. The SISA influence was sidelined at the same time. Last night's meeting was an intelligence gathering exercise from the parties present, other than SISA who didn't show any visible evidence of having any. The deal with the ST is that we carry on in a parallel way supporting each other on the understanding we are a last ditch rescue if all else fails. in the unlikely event of now being needed the trust is the ideal ready made vehicle to launch a rescue. At that stage there could be a combining and a revamp of the trust. We are now working together. Those that didn't want a back up plan can put their hands up now. I, Ron, Duncan and the saveoursaints group have worked to that criteria from the beginning. Everybody's ideal solution was an investor to buy the lot ASAP. Nobody wants a fans owned club unless there was no alternative. I've said it time and time again, yet the same people are making the same comments about fan ownership. It seems to me everybody can type but nobody is reading anything as written but trying to interpret something that isn't there. Nobody is trying to set up a bid for the club, for a start it would be the end of the summer for me, a logistical nightmare, and would certainly fail to get any support. The exception-a rescue facing liquidation which is looking less likely by the day thank goodness. This is the last comment I'm going to make on where we stand.

I don't know the details, some of the things happening are schizophrenic. Saints Aid originally 2nd May, now 27th May. Celebrity game original date this monday, too early say club now 17th May. Dyer thing hanging out. Yet the financial message is dire.

Excellent post, SLH could take action against the league on the grounds that it's value for sale had been damaged by the league's actions which are not in accordance with the letter of their rules. Thereby increasing the losses to creditors and shareholders.

Mawhinny is talking rubbish. A good lawyer will make mincemeat of him. The structure was formed in 1997, the league brought in the points rule for the 2004/5 season. Whatever Mawhinny says about interesting is absolute hogwash, if he doesn't know his history he certainly doesn't know his rules. 'Club in administration' is legally not 'a club intrinsically/inextricably linked to a holding company in administration' It is a breach of insolvency rules by the club that is being cited. However Grant Thornton were given a different brief by the league to the one supplied to the club by the league. The club refused to let Grant Thornton work to anything but the brief supplied to them. GT walked out and reported back to the league who then acted without consulting the club. Now that Southampton are appealing the league are squealing that it has no chance of success. Strange, I thought 'no comment, it's now sub judice until the appeal is heard' would be the league's response. That sounds like it's the their nightmare situation, got it wrong, premature, legal teams now involved. It remains to be seen whether they balls it out, using bully boy tactics, or get turned over at appeal or better still SLH go to law.

There is a mechanism for advertising available players by the PFA, or by circular to likely buyers. The club nearly weren't able to play tomorrow's game. The Dyer fee wouldnt be in for a couple of weeks. Swansea might even choose to leave Saints with him on the books paying his salary for the summer then buy him. If anyone else came in it would up the ante. In any event this was Lawrie McMenemy's suggestion that we could probably get a better price if we widened the scope.

Nobody willing to help then, only the 'I'm not going to help because of the players' brigade posting. Maybe they would carry the buckets, that wouldn't cost anything.

Fantastic, I'll stand down, it's all yours. I'm gratified to see it's in such competent hands. That's me finished, I don't need this crap.

I've done the sums regarding the value of the assets and any new owner would be bloody mad not to buy the lot including the stadium. The rent would be never ending and increasing whilst the landlord would have all the other income from the stadium. It really is a no brainer for the new owner. The stadium income would far exceed the cost of buying. In any event it would take at least two weeks to even get a council vote on the purchase and their position is a definite last resort.

It would depend what the buyer wanted to include in his purchase.

Not until the season is over would there be any fee paid over. In any event why not advertise him for sale and call Swansea's bluff.